STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Allahabasd dated February 3,1994 in F.A.No.233/88.5.357 acres of agricultural land situated in Daoodpur, pargana Chinaiya-kot Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Azamgarh was acquired for construction of Sirsa Alpika. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated January 10, 1985 determined compensation @ Rs.3,658.87 per acre. Dissatisfied there with, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Civil Court. The Civil court in its award and decree dated February 17,1988 enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Reference Court, both the claimants as well as the State filed the appeal. In the impugned judgment, the learned Judge granted compensation @ Rs.69,013.11 per acre. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3.) It is settled law that in reference under Section 18 claimant being dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, when the proceedings are taken under Section 20 of the Act, burden is always on the claimant like plaintiff to adduce reliable and acceptable evidence to prove proper, just and adequate compensation to the acquired land. If such an evidence was adduced, burden shifts on the State to disprove it. It is further settled law that the sales transactions filed either in the narration of award or documents, without examination of either the vendee or by the vendor is not evidence. It is the duty of the Court to carefully assess the evidence on the touch stone of human conduct and prudent purchaser. Admittedly, in this case, though reference to four sales transactions has been made by the Reference Court, neither the vendee nor the vendor was examined nor was it established that the sale consideration which passed thereunder is true and the prices for which the sales came to be executed were real one between willing vendor and willing vendee. Equally, burden is on the claimant to establish that the lands relating to the sales transactions and the lands under acquisition are possessed of same value, nature of the lands are same and capable to fetch same price, and so also other situations as comparable features. Unfortunately, neither the refernce Court not the High Court has looked into this legal aspect of the matter and proceeded on the terms of those sale deeds. It is equally settled law that the Courts should avoid feats of imaginations to fix fanciful price, and sit in the armchair of willing vendee to see whether a prudent purchaser acting in normal market condition would be willing to offer the price which are mentioned in the sale instances. The Court should clearly and carefully evaluate the evidence and determine market value avoiding needless burden on the exchequer and according adequate and just compensation to the acquired land. The very approach adopted by the Courts below is beset with illegalities and, therefore, we do not find any legal basis to consider the evidence on record to determine proper and adequate compensation in respect of the acquired land.